IMPORTANT POINT
The court ruled that the plaintiff was entitled to a sum of Rs.28,26,777/- with interest, rejecting the government's claim of limitation and emphasizing the need for proper reasoning in rejecting claims.

JUDGMENT :

(A.V. Sesha Sai, J.)

These two Appeal Suits, preferred under Section 96 r/w Order 41 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, one by the plaintiff and another by the defendants, are directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 14.12.2017 in O.S.No.109 of 2002, passed by the Court of the I Additional District Judge, Guntur.

2. For the sake of convenience and brevity, this Court deems it appropriate to refer to the parties as per their status in the cause title in the suit.

3. O.S.No.109 of 2002 came to be instituted for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,06,10,269/- together with future interest at the rate of 24% per annum.

4. Vide Judgment and Decree dated 14.12.2017, the learned I Additional District Judge, Guntur, decreed the suit in part for a sum of Rs.10,35,514/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of suit till the date of decree and subsequent interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till realisation.

5. A.S.No.477 of 2008, filed by the plaintiff, is against the disallowed claim and A.S.No.230 of 2009, filed by the defendants, is against the entire decree.

6. Heard Sri J.Prabhakar, learned senior counsel for the appellant in A.S.No.477 of 2008 and respondent in A.S.No.230 of 2009 and Sri P.Bala Swamy, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents in A.S.No.477 of 2008 and appellants in A.S.No.230 of 2009, apart from perusing the material available on record.

7. Submissions/Contentions of Sri J.Prabhakar, learned counsel:

1) The Judgment and Decree rendered by the learned Trial Judge, to the extent the same went against the plaintiff, are erroneous, contrary to law and vitiated by failure to consider the evidence available on record from proper perspective.

2) Having categorically found that the defendant No.1 – State Government passed orders hurriedly and without application of mind, the Trial Court grossly erred in decreeing the suit in part and should have completely decreed the suit.

3) The learned Trial Judge grossly erred in placing reliance on Ex.B.33 – Expert Report dated 15.11.1997, as the same failed to take into consideration the relevant factors such as report of Bapatla Engineering College which clearly establishes that the soil in the entire reach is marine clay soil.

4) The learned Trial Judge ought to have taken into consideration the report of the Superintending Engineer and the recommendations contained therein for arriving at the conclusions.

5) The learned Trial Judge failed to see that even in Ex.B.33 report dated 15.11.1997 of the Expert Committee No.2, it was concluded that the entire soil of the Reach is marine clay soil which is a different nature of soil and as such the plaintiff shall be paid at the rates applicable to such soils.

6) The learned Additional District Judge ought to have seen that it would be very much evident from Ex.B.17 report of the Superintending Engineer, CERP Circle, Chirala that the trend of rates during 1991- 1992 in respect of similar items of works are very much in excess, varying between Rs.380/- to Rs.650/- per 10 cubic meters, besides being no response for some other works and thus the rates claimed by the plaintiff cannot be said to be on the higher side.

7) The conclusion of the learned Additional District Judge that the plaintiff is entitled only as per the recommendations of the Expert Committee is not correct and that the learned Additional District Judge ought to have noticed that even on the aforesaid rate fixed by the Committee, the plaintiff is entitled for the tender excess.

8) The learned Trial Judge erred in awarding interest on the sum found payable from the date of suit and ought to have directed payment of interest from the date of completion of work during 1991-1992 and not from the date of suit.

9) While awarding additional sum of Rs.9.22 lakhs the Trial Court had taken the tender excess into consideration but while refixation of rates consequent upon the second Expert Committee, the Trial C